From logics to procedures: arguing within international environmental negotiations

References

• Afonso, M., 2002. The relationship with other international agreements: a EU perspective. In: C. Bail, R. Falkner, and H. Marquard, eds. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: reconciling trade in biotechnology with environment & development ? London: Earthscan, 423–437.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, D., 2002. Canada. In: C. Bail, R. Falkner, and H. Marquard, eds. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: reconciling trade in biotechnology with environment & development? London: Earthscan, 237–243.
   Google Scholar
• Andrée, P., 2005. The genetic engineering revolution in agriculture and food: strategies of the ‘biotech bloc’. In: D.L. Levy and P.J. Newell, eds. The business of global environmental governance. Cambridge: MIT Press, 135–166.
   Google Scholar
• Arts, B., 1998. The political influence of global NGOs. Utrecht: International Books.
   Google Scholar
• Arts, B. and Mack, S., 2003. Environmental NGO’s and the biosafety protocol: a case study on political influence. European environment, 13 (1), 19–33.
   Google Scholar
• Arts, B. and Verschuren, P., 1999. Assessing political influence in complex decision-making: an instrument based on triangulation. International political science review, 20 (4), 411–424.
   Google Scholar
• Baber, W.F., 2004. Ecology and democratic governance: toward a deliberative model of environmental politics. The social science journal, 41 (3), 331–346.
   Google Scholar
• Bail, C., Decaestecker, J-P., and Jorgensen, M., 2002. European Union. In: C. Bail, R. Falkner, and H. Marquard, eds. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: reconciling trade in biotechnology with environment & development? London: Earthscan, 166–185.
   Google Scholar
• Berton, P., Kimura, H., and Zartman, I.W., eds, 1999. International negotiation: actors, structure, process, values. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Biermann, F. and Bauer, S., eds, 2009. Managers of global governance: assessing and explaining the effectiveness of intergovernmental organizations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biermann, F. et al., 2010. Earth system governance: a research framework. International environmental agreements: politics, law and economics, 10 (4), 277–298.
   Google Scholar
• Blais, F., 2002. The fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the exploitation of genetic resources: a difficult transition from principles to reality. In: Ph.G. Le Prestre, ed. Governing global biodiversity, the evolution and implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Burlington: Ashgate, 145–158.
   Google Scholar
• Bled, A.J., 2010. Technological choices in international environmental negotiations: an actor–network analysis. Business & society, 49 (4), 570–590.
   Google Scholar
• Bodegard, J., 2002. Documentation. In: C. Bail, R. Falkner, and H. Marquard, eds. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: reconciling trade in biotechnology with environment & development? London: Earthscan, 338–343.
   Google Scholar
• Bohman, J., 1998. The coming of age of deliberative democracy. Journal of political philosophy, 6 (4), 399–423.
   Google Scholar
• Bohman, J., 2007. Democracy across borders: from Dêmos to Dêmoi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brand, U. et al., 2008. Conflicts in environmental regulation and the internationalisation of the state. Abingdon: Routledge/RIPE.
   Google Scholar
• Chasek, P.S., 2001. Earth negotiations: analysing thirty years of environmental diplomacy. Tokyo: The United Nations University.
   Google Scholar
• Checkel, J.T., 2002. Persuasion in international institutions. ARENA Working Papers, WP 02-14, 1 August.
   Google Scholar
• Chouchena-Rojas, M. et al., eds, 2005. Disclosure requirements: ensuring mutual supportiveness between the WTO TRIPS Agreement and the CBD. Gland; Geneva; Cambridge: IUCN and ICTSD.
   Google Scholar
• Corell, E. and Betsill, M.M., 2001. A comparative look at NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: desertification and climate change. Global environmental politics, 1 (4), 86–108.
   Google Scholar
• Cusco Declaration on Access to Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rights of Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries, 29 November 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J.S., 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J.S., 2009. Democratization as deliberative capacity building. Comparative political studies, 42 (11), 1379–1402.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J.S. and Stevenson, H., 2011. Global democracy and earth system governance, Ecological economics, 70 (11), 1865–1874.
   Google Scholar
• Dufault, E., 2006. Demi-tour: une approche sociologique des revirements de politique étrangère, le cas de la politique environnementale canadienne. Thesis (PhD). University of Québec, Montreal.
   Google Scholar
• Enright, C.A., 2002. The United States. In: C. Bail, R. Falkner, and H. Marquard, eds. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: reconciling trade in biotechnology with environment & development? London: Earthscan, 95–104.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission, 1999. Immediate decisions at Seattle, biotechnology-related issues. In: European Commission, Hungary, Japan, Korea, Switzerland & Turkey, Common Working Paper to the Seattle ministerial Declaration, 30th November 1999, distributed at the World Trade Organisation Ministerial Meeting in Seattle, consulted in the Ecoropa archives.
   Google Scholar
• Falkner, R., ed., 2007. The international politics of genetically modified food: diplomacy, trade and law. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Finnemore, M., 1996. Norms, culture, and world politics: insights from sociology’s institutionalism. International organization, 50 (2), 325–347.
   Google Scholar
• Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K., 1998. International norm dynamics and political change. International organization, 52 (4), 887–917.
   Google Scholar
• Gulbrandsen, L. and Andresen, S., 2004. NGO influence in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: compliance, flexibility mechanisms and sinks. Global environmental politics, 4 (4), 54–75.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta, A., 1999. Framing biosafety in an international context. ENRP Discussion Paper, E-99-10, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta, A., 2000. Creating a global biosafety regime. International journal of biotechnology, 2 (1/2/3), 205–230.
   Google Scholar
• Heritier, A. and Lehmkuhl, D., 2008. The shadow of hierarchy and new modes of governance. Journal of public policy, 28 (1), 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Howard, P. 2000. The Liliput strategy in the struggle for an international biosafety protocol. Revista Theomai / Theomai journal: society nature and development studies, 1, 51–78. Available from: http://revista-theomai.unq.edu.ar/numero1/arthoward1.htm
   Google Scholar
• Kempf, H., 2003. La guerre secrète des OGM. Paris: éditions du Seuil.
   Google Scholar
• Koester, V., 2002. The Biosafety Working Group (BSWG) process: a personal account from the chair. In: C. Bail, R. Falkner, and H. Marquard, eds. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: reconciling trade in biotechnology with environment & development? London: Earthscan, 44–61.
   Google Scholar
• Krasner, S., ed., 1983. International regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Li, L.L. 1999. Biosafety protocol talks end in deadlock again. South–North Development Monitor SUNS [Email Edition], 21 September.
   Google Scholar
• MacGraw, D.M., 2002. The story of the biodiversity convention: from negotiation to implementation. In: Ph. G. Le Prestre, ed. Governing global biodiversity: the evolution and implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Burlington, VA: Ashgate, 7–38.
   Google Scholar
• Mackenzie, R. and Sands, Ph., 2002. Prospects for international environmental law. In: C. Bail, R. Falkner, and H. Marquard, eds. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: reconciling trade in biotechnology with environment & development? London: Earthscan, 457–466.
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J., 2009. A ‘selection model’ of political representation. The journal of political philosophy, 17 (4), 369–398.
   Google Scholar
• McConnell, F., 1996. The biodiversity convention – a negotiating history: a personal account of negotiating the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, and after... London: Kluwer Law International.
   Google Scholar
• Moravcsik, A., 1997. Taking preferences seriously: a liberal theory of international politics. International organization, 51 (4), 512–53.
   Google Scholar
• Nechay, G., 2002. Central and Eastern Europe. In: C. Bail, R. Falkner, and H. Marquard, eds. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: reconciling trade in biotechnology with environment & development? London: Earthscan, 12–217.
   Google Scholar
• Nevill, J., 2002. Seychelles. In: C. Bail, R. Falkner, and H. Marquard, eds. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: reconciling trade in biotechnology with environment & development? London: Earthscan, 146–154.
   Google Scholar
• Newell, P., 2010. Democratising biotechnology? Deliberation, participation and social regulation in a neo-liberal world. Review of international studies, 36 (2), 471–491.
   Google Scholar
• Nobs, B., 2002. Switzerland. In: C. Bail, R. Falkner and H. Marquard, eds. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: reconciling trade in biotechnology with environment & development? London: Earthscan, 186–192.
   Google Scholar
• Osiander, A., 2001. Sovereignty, international relations, and the Westphalian myth. International organization 55 (2), 251–287.
   Google Scholar
• Princen, T. and Finger, M., 1994. Environmental NGOs in world politics: linking the local and the global. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Princen, T., Finger, M., and Mannon, J., 1995. Nongovernmental organizations in world environmental politics. International environmental affairs, 7 (1), 42–59.
   Google Scholar
• Pythoud, F. and Thomas, U.P., 2002. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. In: Ph.G. Le Prestre, ed. Governing global biodiversity: the evolution and implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Burlington, VA: Ashgate, 39–56.
   Google Scholar
• Rabitz, F. and Oberthür, S., 2011. Explaining EU leadership in the negotiations on the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit sharing. Paper for the workshop ‘Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Governance after the Nagoya Protocol: Architecture and Actors’, The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Oslo, Lysaker, 26–27 September.
   Google Scholar
• Risse, T. 2000. Let’s argue: communicative action in world politics. International organization, 54 (1), 1–39.
   Google Scholar
• Risse, T. and Ulbert, C., 2005. Deliberately changing the discourse: what does make arguing effective? Acta Politica, 40 (3), 351–367.
   Google Scholar
• Rosendal, K.G., 2000. Impacts of overlapping international regimes: the case of biodiversity. Global governance, 7 (1), 95–117.
   Google Scholar
• Rosendal, K.G., 2006. Balancing access and benefit sharing and legal protection of innovations from bioprospecting impacts on conservation of biodiversity. The journal of environment & development, 15 (4), 428–447.
   Google Scholar
• Samper, C., 2002. The extraordinary meeting of the conference of the parties. In: C. Bail, R. Falkner, and H. Marquard, eds. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: reconciling trade in biotechnology with environment & development? London: Earthscan, 62–75.
   Google Scholar
• Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2003. The Cartagena Protocol on biosafety: a record of the negotiations. Montreal: Secretariat of the CDB printing.
   Google Scholar
• Sjosted, G., 1993. International environmental negotiation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Skodvin, T. and Andresen, S., 2003. Non state influence in the International Whaling Commission, 1970–1990. Global environmental politics, 3 (4), 61–86.
   Google Scholar
• Spector, B.I. Sjosted, G., and Zartman, I.W., eds, 1994. Negotiating international regimes: lessons learned from the UNCED. London; Dortrecht; Boston, MA: Graham Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff, Kluwer Group.
   Google Scholar
• Steffenhagen, B., 2001. The influence of biotech industry on German and European negotiation positions regarding the 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Berlin: Memoire for the Otto-Suhr-Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Freie Universität.
   Google Scholar
• Svarstad, H., 1994. National sovereignty and genetic resources. In: V. Sanchez and C. Juma, eds. Biodiplomacy: genetic resources and international relations. Nairobi: ACTS Press, 45–66.
   Google Scholar
• Tapper, R., 2000. Biosafety protocol, the outlook for renewed negotiations [online]. Available from: http://www.ukabc.org/cartagena.htm [Accessed 4 June 2010].
   Google Scholar
• Tully, S., 2003. The Bonn guidelines on access to genetic resources and benefit sharing. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law (RECIEL), 12 (1), 84–98.
   Google Scholar
• Victor, D.G., 2001. The collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the struggle to slow global warming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Victor, D.G., 2006. Toward effective international cooperation on climate change: numbers, interests and institutions. Global environmental politics, 6 (3), 90–103.
   Google Scholar
• Vogler, J., 1995. The global commons: a regime analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, G. and De Jonquières, G., 1999. Europeans block biotech move. Financial Times, 3 December.
   Google Scholar